Vulcan in Chief

Live long and prosper? Nah, death panels and 9% unemployment!

By

James Taranto

July 22, 2011

We thought the Boston Globe was a newspaper, but apparently it is a science-fiction fanzine. Get a load of this column by Joshua Green:

Barack Obama took office vowing to usher in a post-partisan era that would drain the toxic anger of the Bush years and focus the country on practical, long-overdue reforms. Like Bush, he was no doubt sincere in wanting to unite the country. Unlike Bush, he has governed in a manner largely consistent with that ideal. A lot of good it's done him: Washington is more poisonous than ever. And as Congress courts disaster by threatening to default on the national debt, Obama must marvel at his plight. Practically a caricature of Spock-like rationality and sober caution, he's presiding over a capital that has become completely unhinged.

Come to think of it, there are major similarities between Obama and Spock. Both have oversize ears. Both were fathered by aliens, although Obama's parents hailed from the same planet. Both are ill suited for command, although Spock was not ambitious enough to seek it.

ENLARGE

It's amok time in Washington.
Getty Images

And of course everyone remembers the episode in which Spock said: "Imagine Captain Kirk drivin' the Enterprise into a wormhole"--Vulcans always drop their g's when they're trying to sound folksy--"and it's a deep wormhole. It's a big wormhole. And somehow he walked away from the accident, and we put on our boots and we transported down into the wormhole--me and Bones and Scotty and Hikaru and Nyota. We've been pushin', pushin', tryin' to get that starship out of the wormhole. And meanwhile, Kirk is standin' there, sippin' on a Slurpee."

OK, we exaggerated. He didn't actually say "Nyota." Lieutenant Uhura didn't have a first name until the 2009 "Star Trek" movie.

Green's entire account of Obama's presidency is as removed from reality as "Star Trek." By what conceivable standard can one claim that the president has "governed in a manner largely consistent" with the "ideal" of "a postpartisan era"--much less that he has been "unlike Bush" in doing so?

Consider the two most controversial legislative initiatives of George W. Bush's first half-term: the 2001 tax cut and the 2002 authorization to use military force against Iraq. Both had substantial bipartisan support: The former passed with "yes" votes from 28 House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats; the latter had the backing of 81 House Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats.

By contrast, Obama's two biggest legislative initiatives, the so-called stimulus and ObamaCare, had the support of a grand total of three Republicans in both houses combined (all senators who voted in favor of the stimulus).

Now, Obama backers might argue that these were just "practical, long-term reforms," which the Republicans were partisan for opposing. One's own side, after all, is always principled where the other side is partisan. But the majority of voters did not seem to see it this way. The most modest interpretation of the 2010 election results is that Americans thought Obama had gone way too far and wished to restrain him from going further.

Which brings us to the current impasse involving the debt limit. The so-called mainstream media is engaged in a bizarre propaganda effort, aimed not so much at persuading voters to agree with Obama but at convincing politicians that voters agree with Obama. Green provides a particularly good example of this, selectively citing survey numbers to paint a picture of wide public support of the president, when in fact the polls are more ambiguous.

"A majority of Americans now say Congress should raise the [debt] ceiling," Green writes. Perhaps so, in some surveys and subject to certain conditions. But in a Fox News poll released Wednesday, "voters were asked to imagine being a lawmaker in Congress who had to cast an up-or-down vote on raising the debt ceiling. The poll found 35 percent would vote in favor of increasing the limit, while 60 percent would vote against it."

"Two-thirds agree with Obama that any deal should balance spending cuts with tax increases," Green writes. "Only 21 percent favor the Republicans' plan of cuts alone." But according to a CNN poll, 66% favor a proposal in which "Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved." That's the GOP "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan, which the Senate tabled this morning by a 51-46 party-line vote.

"Obama's approval rating, while only around 50 percent, towers over that of his opponents," Green writes. He doesn't mention that presidential approval ratings almost always tower over congressional ones. Anyway, "around 50%" is overly generous. The RealClearPolitics average is 46% (with 48.8% disapproval), and it has been more than a month since any poll showed Obama with an approval rating over 50%.

Even as he falsely claims that "Obama has prevailed" in public opinion, Green acknowledges that the president is "almost certain to lose the fight in Congress":

He'll get the debt limit raised--maybe before a default, maybe after--but only in exchange for a package that will probably consist entirely of cuts totaling at least $1.5 trillion and force his party into a series of politically uncomfortable votes. . . . It's enough to turn anyone into a raving partisan.

If the public is really on Obama's side, he ought to be able to hold out and win a legislative victory. But the truth is that he desperately needs a deal. The politics of default are unpredictable, but it is far from obvious that independents would respond to the chaos we have been told would ensue by re-electing the man who presided over it.

True, this confrontation would not be happening if Democrats still controlled the House. Maybe voters will end up blaming Republicans and end up re-electing Obama and a Democratic House majority. Then again, they may remember what that combination yielded in 2009-10 and conclude that Obama is incapable of governing satisfactorily regardless of which party controls Congress.

In the past four congressional terms, we have cycled through every possible party configuration of White House and House: both Republican in 2005-06, Republican president and Democratic House in 2007-08, both Democratic in 2009-10, and now Democratic president and Republican House. (In each election the Senate has moved in the same direction as the House, although not far enough in 2010 to deprive the Democrats of their majority.)

Voters were anxious for change in 2006, 2008 and 2010, and it's hard to imagine they won't be in 2012. That is a danger for Republicans for sure, but even more so for the one politician whose defeat would spell big change.

Try Not to Think of a Tax Increase An interesting example of the limits of propaganda appears in this passage from a Los Angeles Times news story about the debt negotiations:

Still, the plan would represent a sizable gain for Republicans, who want spending cuts in return for an increase in the debt ceiling but abhor steps to increase revenues, which they call tax increases.

This reminds us of that trope "a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion." We are never told what supporters call it, and indeed if you pressed the matter, you'd probably be answered with denials that anyone supports it. They only support "rights" and would rather just leave it at that. But like being told not to think of an elephant, the awkward phrasing only draws attention to "partial-birth abortion," which sounds pretty awful, even if only opponents call it that.

Anyway, here we have the Times reporter using the political euphemism "steps to increase revenue" as if it were the way ordinary people refer to it, and then describing the ordinary term "tax increases" as if it were some kind of tendentious dysphemism. It ends up calling attention to the reporter's bias in favor of tax increases, whereas simply saying ". . . but abhor tax increases" would not.

Mr. Sharpton's imminent hiring, which was acknowledged by three people at the channel on condition of anonymity because the contract had not been signed, is significant in part because MSNBC and other news channels have been criticized for a paucity of minority hosts in prominent time slots. Mr. Sharpton, who is black and is a well-known civil rights activist and radio host, has been guest hosting in the 6 p.m. time slot for the last three weeks.

From a 1995 article in New York's Daily News, here is an example of the New York Times's idea of a "civil rights activist":

The Rev. Al Sharpton apparently referred to the Jewish owner of Freddy's Fashion Mart as a "white interloper" in a rally three months before the Harlem massacre, newly revealed tapes show.

Speaking at a separate rally, Morris Powell, who later led the protest against the W. 125th St. store, specifically mentioned Freddy's, saying he would not let a "Jewish person" drive black businesses out of Harlem and vowed, "We are going to make that white cracker suffer."

As blogger David Burge tweets, "if you think 'hey, I should hire a black person,' and the best one you can come up with is Al Sharpton, your racism is beyond repair."

Oh well, at least this presumably means he won't be able to go on Fox News anymore.

Meanwhile, the Times itself has named David Leonhardt its new Washington bureau chief:

His appointment is the first major staffing decision by the incoming executive editor of The Times, Jill Abramson. In an internal announcement, Mr. Leonhardt is called "one of our finest writers and most elegant thinkers."

"His keen understanding of how Washington works and the nexus of politics and economic policy make him a perfect leader of the Washington bureau at this moment," the memo read.

He Was Against It Before Being for It All Along "Senator John Kerry, [the haughty, French-looking former junior senator from Massachusetts, who by the way served in Vietnam] has a declaration," the Boston Globe reports. "He now supports gay marriage":

He came out, if you will, . . . last March, when his staff answered a survey from a Globe reporter inquiring about whether members of the state's congressional delegation favored gay marriage and the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. . . .

During an interview yesterday, Kerry acknowledged his change of heart but bristled at any suggestion he was tip-toeing into a political-180.

"What was the question? 'Do you support gay marriage?' What was the answer? 'Yes,' " he said. "I mean, I can't--I'm sorry the Globe didn't write more about it or say something about it, but that's not my doing. I said 'yes.' And then I voluntarily, spontaneously wrote an op-ed, because I thought it was important for people to understand the value of the journey that I took."

Give us a break. Kerry took a "journey" like he was a war hero. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it passed the Senate 85-14. He has always been for same-sex marriage. He merely lacked the courage of his convictions--until public opinion had moved sufficiently that courage was no longer necessary.

Metaphor Alert "Europe Steps Up to the Plate: Europe's leaders have grasped the nettle. Faced with a spiralling bond crisis in Italy and Spain and the greatest threat to the EU project for 50 years, they have ripped up their bail-out strategy and taken a large stride towards a 'liability union.' "--headline and subheadline, Daily Telegraph (London), July 21

Anything I Can Do, You Can Do Better?

"We men just make bad decisions. We can't help it. We're men. Women, on the other hand, do almost everything better."--David Weidner, MarketWatch.com, June 14

"The Importance of the DFT Method on the Computation of the Second Hyperpolarizability of Semiconductor Clusters of Increasing Size: A critical analysis on prolate aluminum phosphide clusters"--headline and subheadline, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, July 15

"Dispelling rumors that his troubled campaign is on the outs, Lloyd Grove confirms that Newt Gingrich is still running for president."--subheadline, TheDailyBeast.com, July 22

Wannabe Media Critics Paul Thurrott, proprietor of the eponymous Supersite for Windows, is unhappy with the New York Times:

I just give up. This paper is so pro-Apple and so anti-Microsoft that it's hard to excuse anymore. It's blatant, it's constant, and it's too much. . . .

This isn't the first time the NYT has let its cozy relationship with Apple get in the way of news, and it certainly won't be the last. This periodical has a responsibility, as the "paper of record," to get this stuff right. But it doesn't, not with its technology reporting at least. And I feel that its behavior is both deliberate and with malice. What really kills me is that hundreds of thousands of innocent, normal people read this crap every single day and buy into its version of reality. I expect that behavior from Fox News, but not from the New York Times. This is unacceptable for a mainstream publication that's supposed to have checks and balances.

If he expects this behavior from Fox News but not from the New York Times, he really is gullible enough to believe everything he reads in the Times.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.